Why are some interpreters not being honest with the text involving Daniel 9:27?

[covenantee]

Replacement theology is not a valid theology, it is flawed. and rejects that God keeps his promises

What is replaced?

Who or what replaces it?

 

[Davidpt]

The temple has a holy place. and a most holy place. any rebuilt temple would have these two places inside that temple.

The fact that it is not doing anything of value has no bearing on prophecy. Prophecy just states what is going on. not if it is required or not.

Israel is in sin, They are said to repent at the end of this tribulation period or time of Jacob's trouble.. So up until that time, I would expect them to do things which Mock Christ. Like starting sacrifice and burnt offering. which currently they have everything needed except the temple..

Until recently my position has basically been the same as yours except I was no longer applying anything in the literal sense pertaining to verse 27. Like you, I too took verse 27 to be future, all of it, and that I was having the AC being the one that fulfills the entire week, just not in a literal sense involving a rebuilt temple, etc.


The prince to come in verse 27 I was taking that to mean a future ac, still do. I was then taking the one that causes sacrificing to cease to be meaning this ac. And this then meaning in the future in the end of this age spiritually not literally. Thus if the gap is between the 69th and 70th week, no way could Christ be meant in verse 27, was my thinking on it. Even if I still took the entire 70th week to be future and it involving the ac not Christ, you and I still wouldn't be on the same page because I am not taking those things in the literal sense but you are. I used to take those things in the literal sense, but that was years ago.


I see several ways to look at verse 27 in relation to verse 26. The question is, assuming one of these might be the correct way to look at it, which one is the correct way to look at it?

One way to look at it might be like this.

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.


The last person mentioned in this verse is not the Messiah, it is the prince that shall come. Therefore, the prince that shall is the one meant in verse 27 that causes the sacrificing to cease in the middle of the week. Then depending on who one has decided the prince to come is meaning, one then has him fulfilling the middle of the week. If one takes the Messiah to mean the prince to come, it is then the Messiah being the one that fulfills the middle of the week. Except the Messiah can't fulfill this part, though--- and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate. No problemo, these interpreters say. That part is not even involving the 70th week to begin with. It is meaning 40 years after the 70 weeks finished entirely, 40 years earlier.

If one takes the prince to come to mean the ac instead, he for sure can fit this part---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate. But can he also fit this part---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease?


Another way of looking at it might be like such. Keeping in mind we are still talking about ways to look at verse 27 in relation to verse 26.

In verse 26, this part---And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself--fits with this part in verse 27---And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease


While the remainder in verse 26, this part---and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined--fits with the remainder in verse 27, this part----and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


Looking at it this way there is no way that the AC can be the one meant that causes the sacrificing to cease. And equally there is no way that the Messiah is meant by the prince to come, because, clearly, the Messiah can't fit this part---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate

Thus the gap is not between the 69th and 70th week, it is after the Messiah fulfills the middle of the week. Of course though you still have the deniers insisting there is no gap anywhere in the 70 weeks. That verse 27 is not even pertaining to the 70th week from start to finish. The remainder of it is meaning 40 years later, not during the 70th week itself. Therefore, no gap anywhere since verse 27 the context is not the 70th week alone, it is the 70th week and outside of that week. I guess the same way verse 25 the context is not the first 69 weeks alone, it is the 69 weeks and outside of those weeks. Of course that is not true nor am I implying that anyone is claiming that it is true. I guess I'm just using sarcasm to make a point here then.

 

[TribulationSigns]

I get it now, since this new covenant was only for one week it has ceased to be in effect and the prophecy is complete, no gaps whatsoever. Is this what you imply?

I believe that the confirmation of the covenant by the Messiah the prince does not last only one literal week. The week spans over time from the Cross to the Last Day when Christ returns. The sacrifice and obligation is the Messiah's sacrifice on our behalf until all the Elect are secured before he ceases the sacrifice and the desolation is set up in the unfaithful church before the Second Coming. This has nothing to do with preterism's 70 AD theory or the future so-called 7 years tribulation promoted by premillennialism.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Which covenant, the one in Daniel 9, or the one on the cross?

What do you think? What covenant did Daniel write in 9:27? When and how did that covenant confirmed?

the one on the cross was confirmed when he rose from the dead..

False. Not according to Hebrews 9. The convent will confirm only when someone dies.. like a will. Not when someone rose from the dead.

The one in daniel 9 has not even been made yet, let alone confirmed.

What are you talking about? "The one in daniel 9"? There is only one covenant in Daniel 9 that was confirmed. So why do you believe it has not been confirmed or made?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Until recently my position has basically been the same as yours except I was no longer applying anything in the literal sense pertaining to verse 27. Like you, I too took verse 27 to be future, all of it, and that I was having the AC being the one that fulfills the entire week, just not in a literal sense involving a rebuilt temple, etc.


The prince to come in verse 27 I was taking that to mean a future ac, still do. I was then taking the one that causes sacrificing to cease to be meaning this ac. And this then meaning in the future in the end of this age spiritually not literally. Thus if the gap is between the 69th and 70th week, no way could Christ be meant in verse 27, was my thinking on it. Even if I still took the entire 70th week to be future and it involving the ac not Christ, you and I still wouldn't be on the same page because I am not taking those things in the literal sense but you are. I used to take those things in the literal sense, but that was years ago.

I see all prophecy as a tool used by God to tell us years in advance of things that will occur. Anmd when those things happen. the people alive them can be drawn to God because he said they would happen. They did, and that points to this one God who can tell of future events years in advance.

God declares he tells things before they happen.

Is 46:
Remember the former things of old,
For I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like Me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,

It is what separates him from false Gods. so we know who is the real god.

it also helps us separate false prophets from true one.

Deuteronomy 18:22

when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

Of course for both of these to be true. Literal things must happen.

Unlike allegory or parabolic literature. in which a spiritual truth is being spoken of by using symbols. or stories.

I see several ways to look at verse 27 in relation to verse 26. The question is, assuming one of these might be the correct way to look at it, which one is the correct way to look at it?

One way to look at it might be like this.

Daniel 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.


The last person mentioned in this verse is not the Messiah, it is the prince that shall come. Therefore, the prince that shall is the one meant in verse 27 that causes the sacrificing to cease in the middle of the week. Then depending on who one has decided the prince to come is meaning, one then has him fulfilling the middle of the week. If one takes the Messiah to mean the prince to come, it is then the Messiah being the one that fulfills the middle of the week. Except the Messiah can't fulfill this part, though--- and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate. No problemo, these interpreters say. That part is not even involving the 70th week to begin with. It is meaning 40 years after the 70 weeks finished entirely, 40 years earlier.

If one takes the prince to come to mean the ac instead, he for sure can fit this part---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate. But can he also fit this part---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease?

To answer your question - "But can he also fit this part---and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease?"
The answer is yes.. The abomination 9of desolation is the cause of making the holy place unlcean, which stop sacrifice and burnt offering. We have historical precedence. see Antiochus epiphanies and the pig he slaughtered in the holy place. which causes sacrifice and burnt offering to cease

Another way of looking at it might be like such. Keeping in mind we are still talking about ways to look at verse 27 in relation to verse 26.

In verse 26, this part---And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself--fits with this part in verse 27---And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease


While the remainder in verse 26, this part---and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined--fits with the remainder in verse 27, this part----and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.


Looking at it this way there is no way that the AC can be the one meant that causes the sacrificing to cease. And equally there is no way that the Messiah is meant by the prince to come, because, clearly, the Messiah can't fit this part---and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate

Thus the gap is not between the 69th and 70th week, it is after the Messiah fulfills the middle of the week. Of course though you still have the deniers insisting there is no gap anywhere in the 70 weeks. That verse 27 is not even pertaining to the 70th week from start to finish. The remainder of it is meaning 40 years later, not during the 70th week itself. Therefore, no gap anywhere since verse 27 the context is not the 70th week alone, it is the 70th week and outside of that week. I guess the same way verse 25 the context is not the first 69 weeks alone, it is the 69 weeks and outside of those weeks. Of course that is not true nor am I implying that anyone is claiming that it is true. I guess I'm just using sarcasm to make a point here then.

Again, I look at it this way.

We know everything spoke in the 1st 69 weeks was literally fulfilled in order

we know the city and sanctuary was destroyed literally, and next in order

This would show me that everything after 70 AD using interpretive precedence should happen in order and literally also. should be interpreted the same way, in order.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

What do you think? What covenant did Daniel write in 9:27? When and how did that covenant confirmed?

It has not been written yet
It has not been confirmed yet
and it has not been broken yet

False. Not according to Hebrews 9. The convent will confirm only when someone dies.. like a will. Not when someone rose from the dead.

but if Jesus just died, you would not know if God accepted his sacrifice. the fact he rose from the dead CONFIRMS God accepted his sacrifice in full

What are you talking about? "The one in daniel 9"? There is only one covenant in Daniel 9 that was confirmed. So why do you believe it has not been confirmed or made?

Your right, there is only one, which will be confirmed after what happened before it is completed.. Non of it is complete yet.

The last thing completed was 70 AD destruction.. It still lies desolate. the war desolation are still occuring till this day..

 

[TribulationSigns]

It has not been written yet
It has not been confirmed yet
and it has not been broken yet

Ahh....I see where you are coming from (and of course, you are wrong on all accounts)

And you believe the covenant that has not yet written? What do you mean by that? Do you expect one in paper, written by men?

but if Jesus just died, you would not know if God accepted his sacrifice. the fact he rose from the dead CONFIRMS God accepted his sacrifice in full

When Jesus said, "it is finished" It is done and His sacrifice was acceptable to God. His blood confirmed this. Read Hebrews 9. You remain refuted.

The last thing completed was 70 AD destruction.. It still lies desolate. the war desolation are still occuring till this day..

You do not make any sense at all. But moving on. :-)

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I get it now, since this new covenant was only for one week it has ceased to be in effect and the prophecy is complete, no gaps whatsoever. Is this what you imply?

He said more than once that the new covenant is eternal, so why would you ask this? Do you know what the new covenant is?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

for 1 week

The new covenenat is eternal

Your not helping either.

well yeah actually you are. Your helping confirm my belief is the only possible interpretation.

You denied that Jesus confirmed any covenant with anyone. You were proven wrong. Humble yourself and admit that. Can you acknowledge that Jesus confirmed the new covenant with many by way of forgiving the sins of many through His blood (all those who belong to Him)?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Ahh....I see where you are coming from (and of course, you are wrong on all accounts)

thanks for your view

And you believe the covenant that has not yet written? What do you mean by that? Do you expect one in paper, written by men?

I have yet to see a 7 year covenant, let alone a 7 year covenant in which in the middle of that 7 years. the person who confirmed it broke it.

Maybe you can show me one?

When Jesus said, "it is finished" It is done and His sacrifice was acceptable to God. His blood confirmed this. Read Hebrews 9. You remain refuted.

Yet sacrifice and burnt offering continued for another almost 4 decades.

He did not stop it

and by the way, No sacrifice and burnt offering every took away sin. especially when you have the evcil high priests that had been running Israel for years even before Christ You remain refuted

You do not make any sense at all. But moving on. :)

well when you have a faulty interpretation of literal things, of course they will not make sense to you.. Because you do not want to believe them

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You denied that Jesus confirmed any covenant with anyone. You were proven wrong. Humble yourself and admit that. Can you acknowledge that Jesus confirmed the new covenant with many by way of forgiving the sins of many through His blood (all those who belong to Him)?

How about this

I will humble myself and say I guess you could say Jesus confirmed and ETERNAL covenant with his blood (or more than likely when he was resurrected)

if you can humble yourself and admit that the he of vs 27 confirms one covenant for 7 years. as written.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

What is replaced?

Who or what replaces it?

nothing is replaced.

next!

 

[covenantee]

nothing is replaced.

next!

So why is it called replacement theology?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

So why is it called replacement theology?

Because it is the name given to the theology that states the church replaced Israel. hence the term, replacement theology.

 

[TribulationSigns]

I have yet to see a 7 year covenant, let alone a 7 year covenant in which in the middle of that 7 years. the person who confirmed it broke it.

Maybe you can show me one?

Christ did. And the covenant was nor will NOT be 7 years in length.

Yet sacrifice and burnt offering continued for another almost 4 decades.

You misunderstood. That literal Jewish animal blood sacrifice was not in the picture at all (as most preterists believe). Christ confirmed a covenant with HIS BLOOD and that was the sacrifice and the obligations on behalf of HIS PEOPLE, which the Old Testament temple and sacrifice merely pointed to!

The daily sacrifice which is the word [tamiyd], was the sacrificial offering that was to be presented continually. Think about it, Christ's true sacrifice continually as long as it is the day of salvation until all of His Elect are secured.

Exodus 29:37-38

• "Seven days thou shalt make an atonement for the altar, and sanctify it; and it shall be an altar most holy: whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy.
• Now this is that which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually."

That word translated "continually" is the same Hebrew word [tamiyd] that is translated "Daily" (sacrifice), and of course, these Old Testament acts are "types" that point to the sacrifice of the Lamb of God. Jesus Christ is the one true perpetual/continual sacrifice for our sins. So when Aaron and the Priests offered the daily/continual animal sacrifices for sins, they were merely a shadow of the coming Messiah, the only true continual sacrifice for sin. Get it?!

Ephesians 5:2

• "And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour."

Those animals that were commanded by God to be continually sacrificed, were NEVER ENOUGH to take away your or anyone's sin. Remember that! Only Christ sacrificing Himself could do that. But these (the sacrificial laws) were a shadow that people saw darkly, prefigured things to come. In the New Testament era, the old shadow is done away with. We would/should no longer offer the daily or continual sacrifice like the Jews did, because that would in effect deny the anti-type. God's election no longer hold to ceremonies in the type, but the anti-type. All things in Christ, our one time sacrifice that daily/perpetual/continually atones for our sin.

Hebrews 7:27

• "Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself."

My point is, Christ is now the "daily sacrifice" of the believers, and this is what is taken away.

Daniel 8:11

• "Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down."

The place of whose sanctuary? The daily, which is Christ! And the place, which is His house, the Church! Not Jewish temple! It has nothing to do with Old Testament type sacrifices as many believe. The old shadow being passed into history, and the anti-type replacing it. So when you see prophesies in the New testament concerning sacrifices, it is the spiritual anti-type application, not the former animal types. All instances in scripture of future prophesy concerning the daily sacrifice reference the atonement of Christ for man, and by extension the work of Christ in salvation. They do not, and could not reference the re-institution of a literal animal sacrificial system, and a subsequent taking away of it. That would be confusion to have Christ's sanctuary re -nstituting animal sacrifices. A lot of this is explained in Hebrews 10.

Hebrews 10:1-14

• "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
• For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
• But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
• For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
• Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
• In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
• Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
• Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
• Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
• By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
• And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
• But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
• From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
• 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified."

Those daily/continual sacrifices were for a [skia] that we have remembrance of sin, but Christ was the true offered once forever, continually, perpetually. Because that is what the types really foreshadowed. The daily/continual sacrifice today is Spiritual, the salvation of God through Christ, which we minister to the world, giving thanks to God for the privilege.

Hebrews 13:15-16

• " By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name.
• But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased.""

So, understanding all this, we know that when Daniel talks about the daily (sacrifice) being taken away, and the abomination that makes desolate set up, refers not to animal sacrifices, but to the removal of Christ, our daily/continual sacrifice. And the set up of a false God as replacement in God's house. Selah! That is when the apostasy comes in and the abomination that will leave that house desolate! Where? The unfaithful and corporate church! not Jewish temple in 70AD nor future so-called third temple. Selah!

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Christ did. And the covenant was nor will NOT be 7 years in length.

then its not the covenant in vs 27

vs 27: Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week

hence there is no further discussion

 

[covenantee]

Because it is the name given to the theology that states the church replaced Israel. hence the term, replacement theology.

Did the Church replace Israel's physical DNA?

Or did the Church replace Israel's opportunity to come to Christ?

What did the Church replace?

 

[TribulationSigns]

So why is it called replacement theology?

Replacement Theology is not a phrase that is in the Bible. It is a red herring. It is a phrase conjured up by those opposed to the truth of God's very own words concerning the Church and Israel, and it's meant to obfuscate the "real" issue.

Hebrews 8:9-10

• "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
• For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:"

The New Covenant with Israel is NOT with a physical Nation, but with a spiritual people whom God has put His laws into their mind and written them in their hearts. It never was a everlasting Covenant with a physical nation of Israel (nor could it be), and so the idea of replacement of a nation is null and void. The nation only outwardly "represented" God's people, and clearly, according to God's word, that was subject to conditions. We've already given you countless scriptures illustrating that. Far from being blessed people, God has pronounced judgment upon the Nation of Israel.

Matthew 21:42-43

• "Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
• Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

Clearly, those are the Lord's words, not someone's private interpretation. The Kingdom representation has been taken from the nation of Israel. Therefore, to premillennialists, how can your theology teach that the Nation of Israel is still God's chosen people? Clearly, God has chosen to remove the kingdom or reign from them, and give it to another that will bring forth fruit. What you falsely label Replacement Theology is Christ's Theology. No fruit will come from "the nation" Israel ever again. The "restoration of Israel," which is the real Biblical phrase, is accomplished in the rebuilding in Christ. Not in the heresy of physical governments/kingdoms or Temples or Blood Sacrifices. But in Christ, "The Israel of God!"

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Did the Church replace Israel's physical DNA?

Or did the Church replace Israel's opportunity to come to Christ?

What did the Church replace?

You tell me, Your the one who follows that theology. What promise was given to Israel. that people claim now belongs to the church

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Replacement Theology is not a phrase that is in the Bible. It is a red herring.

Your right, it is not in the bible. Neither is the word trinity

again, it is the name given to a theology that claims the church replaces Israel hence the term replacement theology

I have also heard the term covenant theology